Sentios, I have no problem with the majority of your post. There's only a couple things I want to ask about:

> Doubling of NASA's budget:You want their budget doubled? From about $19 billion to $38 billion? For what end? Are they working on something that you hope they'll achieve with an extra $19 billion?

> Raising the tax rate to 50%:Are you willing to risk the idea that the government will be able to get more tax money over the idea that it will slow the recovery from the recession? Most economists say it would be devastating to raise taxes in the middle of a recession. We're not out of it yet, and even if I agreed with a tax increase, it would be far too early to even consider one.

Also, you're well aware that when congress sees an increase in revenue, they invariably see the need to spend more? That happened when Reagan lowered tax rates in the 80s and congress saw tax rates double by the end of his term. Spending increased *past* their income level, even after they asked Reagan how he would pay for his lower tax rate. Wouldn't a tax rate above 50% just blindly encourage them to spend/borrow more than they already are?

> No one worth voting for:So you didn't see any candidates in the race for the Republican nominee that you liked? Did you look beyond the scope of what you want and think about what is needed? Right now we need someone who can successfully guide us out of the recession. That may not include raising taxes. That may or may not include cutting military spending. Is all that stuff you listed above in your criteria for who makes a good leader? Because the role of a leader is not to make everyone happy. Sometimes a leader needs to make decisions that maybe don't make people happy but that everyone will understand need to be done.

You've seen Old Yeller, right? Ends with a dog being shot dead. Nobody liked it, but it had to be done. Would you be the boy who wanted to let a rabid dog out of the pen?

RuffDraft wrote:You want their budget doubled? From about $19 billion to $38 billion? For what end? Are they working on something that you hope they'll achieve with an extra $19 billion?

Are you willing to risk the idea that the government will be able to get more tax money over the idea that it will slow the recovery from the recession? Most economists say it would be devastating to raise taxes in the middle of a recession. We're not out of it yet, and even if I agreed with a tax increase, it would be far too early to even consider one.

Also, you're well aware that when congress sees an increase in revenue, they invariably see the need to spend more? That happened when Reagan lowered tax rates in the 80s and congress saw tax rates double by the end of his term. Spending increased *past* their income level, even after they asked Reagan how he would pay for his lower tax rate. Wouldn't a tax rate above 50% just blindly encourage them to spend/borrow more than they already are?

So you didn't see any candidates in the race for the Republican nominee that you liked? Did you look beyond the scope of what you want and think about what is needed? Right now we need someone who can successfully guide us out of the recession. That may not include raising taxes. That may or may not include cutting military spending. Is all that stuff you listed above in your criteria for who makes a good leader? Because the role of a leader is not to make everyone happy. Sometimes a leader needs to make decisions that maybe don't make people happy but that everyone will understand need to be done.

Slowing down the so called post-recession recovery is a small price to pay to ensure there will be a country in 20 years. The short sightedness of the majority of economist contributed to the creation of the recession to begin with, if they were doctors you'd be suing them not asking them how to fix the problem. Also the irresponsible management of tax revenue doesn't change the fact that revenues have to be increased in order to fix the budget even with cuts.

Sentios wrote:That only increases the quantity of the people you have to worry about.

The point of government is not about one man with a lot of power; it's about a thousand people with a varying degrees of power. The President is not supposed to be "ruling" the nation. He is supposed to help make decisions and enforce policy. He has more power than most people, but all of them have more power than he does. This is why when the President vetoes a bill, Congress can override his veto with 2/3 majority.

If one man has all the power, what happens if that man is replaced by someone who has a hidden---perhaps destructive---agenda? Let's say that he wants to enact martial law so that he can take out organized crime across the country, and he wants to do it without congressional approval. Things like that are what the Founders wanted to prevent by defining the rules by which representatives (and the President) are elected, their suitability for election, how much power they hold and so on.

As for the States, each one should have just a little less power than the Federal Congress. That's what the Founders intended. But the several States have powers that Congress does not. They are not drastically constrained by what the Constitution says Congress cannot do. They still have to adhere to the wording of the Constitution but the States have the means to, say, enact healthcare reform in their own way, separate from Congress as long as it doesn't violate anything in the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps you should read through the Constitution to re-familiarize yourself with it. There may be something in it you missed.

I call you a propagandist when you use only ethos and pathos based arguments and have delivery + directing that emphasizes both to most effectively convince people of a point and assure them of their rightness without offering any actual information of substance.

I mean, this guy may as well be the Pravda saying they are going to deliver a well argued explanation for why the comrades should support the revolution and revile Capitalist democracy.

The means are inherently evil. And if you're not in a position where using those means are an unavoidable reality (politics), then you're not even being a scumbag for the sake of employment/ulterior motives/greed, you're just a scumbag who hates people (or enjoy youtube hits).

Feel passionately about an issue? Then maybe you should actually have an argument, instead of a video clip of a gaff, a position you've assumed is correct, repeated affirmation that the future MUST be doomed to increase emotional response (fear), and the ability to say it all with a soft voice and a nice smile.

Or go into politics where your job's to spin the political decisions you're forced to or want to do in such a way that your voting block keeps supporting you.

I'm also often pretty bewildered how readily people will believe it when the newspaper about and for the richest people say taxing the richest people won't help. I mean, just like, lol economists, okay.

Though, I shouldn't be too hard on them. I mean, economists are pretty important for public peace, since it lets us pretend the economy's under control at all and not just gonna fly off the handle in boom-bust cycles like it actually does.

Jay wrote:I call you a propagandist when you use only ethos and pathos based arguments and have delivery + directing that emphasizes both to most effectively convince people of a point and assure them of their rightness without offering any actual information of substance.

And you see this in the video I posed on page one? [The video is here, just so you don't have to backtrack]

Ethos and pathos he has, I'll admit. But they are not the core of his argument, they are the drive behind it. He cares, and that's neither a crime nor a fault. If you want to refute the evidence he gives in the video, or suggest that he's using half-truths, then use evidence. But all I see is you using that same ethos and pathos you decry as faulty while attacking a man who has plenty to back it up with.

Jay wrote:I mean, this guy may as well be the Pravda saying they are going to deliver a well argued explanation for why the comrades should support the revolution and revile Capitalist democracy.

Is this your argument against people who speak well? That they're equivalent to liars hiding behind a mask of truth? What would you say about people who speak poorly?

Jay wrote:The means are inherently evil.

Talking is not a sin. Lying is. I have yet to see you point out any falsehood and back up your claim with evidence.

Jay wrote:And if you're not in a position where using those means are an unavoidable reality (politics), then you're not even being a scumbag for the sake of employment/ulterior motives/greed, you're just a scumbag who hates people (or enjoy youtube hits).

So if you speak well, and you're talking about a topic that you really care about, you're evil regardless if you're right or wrong? And if you lie at all even unintentionally, you're evil anyway? This is literally the position you're handing me.

Jay wrote:Feel passionately about an issue? Then maybe you should actually have an argument, instead of a video clip of a gaff, a position you've assumed is correct, repeated affirmation that the future MUST be doomed to increase emotional response (fear), and the ability to say it all with a soft voice and a nice smile.

Really.

Consider the following scenario:

If a comet the size of North America is hurtling towards Earth, and someone tells you about it in panicky tones, do you automatically panic? If that same comet is hurtling towards Earth and someone calmly explains the situation to you, and even goes as far as to point it out in the sky, do you automatically assume they're lying and that that little dot is just a piece of a cloud? If someone tells you of the comet and claims they can divert the comet and avoid disaster are they automatically just doing it for fame, or could it be possible for them to have a solution?

Your thesis against good speakers is ridiculous.

Jay wrote:Or go into politics where your job's to spin the political decisions you're forced to or want to do in such a way that your voting block keeps supporting you.

Your disdain for politicians is duly noted. What does it have to do with bringing news of a bad situation to the attention of anyone who will listen?

Jay wrote:I'm also often pretty bewildered how readily people will believe it when the newspaper about and for the richest people say taxing the richest people won't help. I mean, just like, lol economists, okay.

Why should that confuse you? Considering that there's a limit to how much tax revenue you can generate even when people are taxed at 100%, it shouldn't be a surprise to you that government can spend more than it makes in ANY situation. How else did we get into this situation? Top tax rate used to be about 70% and we had a deficit. Then the tax rates were dropped to 38% and revenues doubled in just 6 years. Yet, spending continued to increase past our revenues. Even if we raised taxes to 50%, government would just anticipate the hike in revenues and spend more. That's been proven historically. Yet if Bill Whittle presented that same or similar facts, you'd call him a liar based on how well he spoke?

Jay wrote:Though, I shouldn't be too hard on them. I mean, economists are pretty important for public peace, since it lets us pretend the economy's under control at all and not just gonna fly off the handle in boom-bust cycles like it actually does.

That there is an argument designed to sell "fear," according to my understanding of your position. Glenn Beck has been saying just that for a while, and people called him crazy and a "fear monger." May I note that you are in agreement with Glenn Beck?

RuffDraft wrote:And you see this in the video I posed on page one? [The video is here, just so you don't have to backtrack]

Ethos and pathos he has, I'll admit. But they are not the core of his argument, they are the drive behind it. He cares, and that's neither a crime nor a fault. If you want to refute the evidence he gives in the video, or suggest that he's using half-truths, then use evidence. But all I see is you using that same ethos and pathos you decry as faulty while attacking a man who has plenty to back it up with.

His graphs differ largely (about an extra 20% of spending attributed to entitlements) from the ones I pulled off wikipedia for one, so not only do his pie graphs show false data they don't even have any description to them. The problem is that 'entitlements' are not a singular entity and they have to be discussed individually. Looking just at social security, not paying that out is not an option. People paid large sums of money into it and they should get their well deserved money out of it. What's more a phase out plan won't even ethically work on it unless you get rid of the social security tax and find funds elsewhere. To keep the tax but phase out the benefits would literally be stealing from the young to give to the old.

That there is an argument designed to sell "fear," according to my understanding of your position. Glenn Beck has been saying just that for a while, and people called him crazy and a "fear monger." May I note that you are in agreement with Glenn Beck?

I don't know what Glenn Beck said but Jay is effectively correct, all he's doing is asserting a widely agreed upon argument used by economists in an unexpected way. To explain further one of the main short comings of planned economies is that they're supposedly to chaotic to effectively plan and control, that's a widely held truth among economists. So then economists paradoxically try to predict, plan for, and control the economy, creating all manner of distortions and complications along the way.

RuffDraft wrote:And you see this in the video I posed on page one? [The video is here, just so you don't have to backtrack]

Ethos and pathos he has, I'll admit. But they are not the core of his argument, they are the drive behind it. He cares, and that's neither a crime nor a fault. If you want to refute the evidence he gives in the video, or suggest that he's using half-truths, then use evidence. But all I see is you using that same ethos and pathos you decry as faulty while attacking a man who has plenty to back it up with.

His graphs differ largely (about an extra 20% of spending attributed to entitlements) from the ones I pulled off wikipedia for one, so not only do his pie graphs show false data they don't even have any description to them.

So I take it your assumption is that Wikipedia holds accurate data from 2011 and he's using false data from this year?

Setting that aside, I find a lot of websites that seem to have data that varies from Wikipedia's, so I guess the hundreds of websites that have similar pie charts are all wrong. However, let's start with some more accurate, more current data.

According to USGovernmentSpending.Com, running the government---defense, protection (police and firefighters), general government, interest on current debt, and even education---is only about 37% of the budget. Everything else can be considered an entitlement for the sake of the argument even though it should be noted that that is only a cursory look at it, which is what he's doing here. All he's doing is pointing out the obvious, which is that we are in a very bad situation.

So we have a pie chart that is about 37% government expenditure and 63% public programs, or entitlements. This matches the first chart used in Bill Whittle's video.

Based on what I've just discussed, do you have a question about the second chart?

The point he's making is simply that we would have enough money to operate the government and provide for national defense (such as defending our borders from illegal immigration, etc.) and still have a lot left over without borrowing if we didn't have to pay out massive unsustainable entitlements that the UNITED STATES TREASURER doesn't have a plan for sustaining and who publicly admits that this is the case.

Sentios wrote: The problem is that 'entitlements' are not a singular entity and they have to be discussed individually.

He's not saying they're a single program or entity, he's grouping them as a category. It's more along the lines of a description, like saying "arachnids" "fruits and vegetables" or "energy." There are sub-categories (Social Security or Medicare are two entitlement programs in this category). He's also not suggesting we entirely eliminate entitlements, but that they should be reduced or reformed to make sure that our country does not go bankrupt as a result of the collective programs' unsustainability.

Sentios wrote:Looking just at social security, not paying that out is not an option. People paid large sums of money into it and they should get their well deserved money out of it. What's more a phase out plan won't even ethically work on it unless you get rid of the social security tax and find funds elsewhere. To keep the tax but phase out the benefits would literally be stealing from the young to give to the old.

lol Stealing from the young and giving to the old is what we do now, isn't it? That's all Social Security is. It pays current recipients with funds from current investors.

But here's the deal. Paul Ryan's plan is to leave it unchanged for people 55 or older and reform the system for those below 55 so that they can get a voucher for insurance, which would give insurance companies an incentive to compete for the vouchers. Funds for those vouchers will come from those same taxes. More than likely it won't be called Social Security anymore but the tax will still fund the program, and be a little more sustainable.

Sentios wrote:

That there is an argument designed to sell "fear," according to my understanding of your position. Glenn Beck has been saying just that for a while, and people called him crazy and a "fear monger." May I note that you are in agreement with Glenn Beck?

I don't know what Glenn Beck said but Jay is effectively correct, all he's doing is asserting a widely agreed upon argument used by economists in an unexpected way.

I'm not saying he's wrong. I'm saying he's right, but that he's going against his own stance on using "fear" as a tactic if he's saying that the economists are lying to us and the the economy is basically going to collapse. I was just pointing it out.

RuffDraft wrote:So I take it your assumption is that Wikipedia holds accurate data from 2011 and he's using false data from this year?

You didn't contest them when put them up earlier why would I assume you have a problem with them now?

Setting that aside, I find a lot of websites that seem to have data that varies from Wikipedia's, so I guess the hundreds of websites that have similar pie charts are all wrong. However, let's start with some more accurate, more current data.

According to USGovernmentSpending.Com, running the government---defense, protection (police and firefighters), general government, interest on current debt, and even education---is only about 37% of the budget. Everything else can be considered an entitlement for the sake of the argument even though it should be noted that that is only a cursory look at it, which is what he's doing here. All he's doing is pointing out the obvious, which is that we are in a very bad situation.

So we have a pie chart that is about 37% government expenditure and 63% public programs, or entitlements. This matches the first chart used in Bill Whittle's video.

Okay using your data healthcare, pensions, and welfare are only 59% in 2011 and 56% in 2012 so I think you should double check your math. Pensions/social security can't even be correctly treated as entitlements because that's money on loan from the working age citizens of the nation, payment comes due eventually. You may as well say our foreign debts are entitlements as well so you can preserve your world view.

Based on what I've just discussed, do you have a question about the second chart?

The point he's making is simply that we would have enough money to operate the government and provide for national defense (such as defending our borders from illegal immigration, etc.) and still have a lot left over without borrowing if we didn't have to pay out massive unsustainable entitlements that the UNITED STATES TREASURER doesn't have a plan for sustaining and who publicly admits that this is the case.

Except the moment you cut entitlements you lose at least 30-some% of your federal revenue because you have to cut related taxes and that's without knowing what the long term economic effects would be. Even if you can argue that to be a net positive you can't immediately cut 'entitlement' programs without large scale social upheaval.

He's not saying they're a single program or entity, he's grouping them as a category. It's more along the lines of a description, like saying "arachnids" "fruits and vegetables" or "energy." There are sub-categories (Social Security or Medicare are two entitlement programs in this category). He's also not suggesting we entirely eliminate entitlements, but that they should be reduced or reformed to make sure that our country does not go bankrupt as a result of the collective programs' unsustainability.

Except no one is stupid enough to say 'fruits are poisonous'. The problems don't necessarily lie with the programs themselves thus they can't be fixed by butchering the programs. For example as I've said at least once before, medicare is expensive because our medical industry is absurdly expensive.

lol Stealing from the young and giving to the old is what we do now, isn't it? That's all Social Security is. It pays current recipients with funds from current investors.

But here's the deal. Paul Ryan's plan is to leave it unchanged for people 55 or older and reform the system for those below 55 so that they can get a voucher for insurance, which would give insurance companies an incentive to compete for the vouchers. Funds for those vouchers will come from those same taxes. More than likely it won't be called Social Security anymore but the tax will still fund the program, and be a little more sustainable.

Stealing implies the victim gets nothing back. The essence of social security is that you pay into and get money back later, that the specific dollars came from someone 40 years younger than you is irrelevant so long as the cycle is unbroken (that is they can get money when they retire too). As for your 'incentive to compete' malarkey we've heard it before and it doesn't happen in these particular industries.

Sentios wrote:I'm not saying he's wrong. I'm saying he's right, but that he's going against his own stance on using "fear" as a tactic if he's saying that the economists are lying to us and the the economy is basically going to collapse. I was just pointing it out.

He didn't say it was going to collapse, he said it was going to boom and bust regardless of what economists do or say, which is historically true. It's no more terrifying than saying the sun will rise and set.

RuffDraft wrote:So I take it your assumption is that Wikipedia holds accurate data from 2011 and he's using false data from this year?

You didn't contest them when put them up earlier why would I assume you have a problem with them now?

I'm beginning to think you're just not reading anything I write.

What year are we in? 2012.What year is your data? 2011.What year is Bill Whittle's data? 2012.

My objection is not to whether Wikipedia's data is false; it's whether Whittle's data is false. You objected to it because it didn't match Wikipedia's data, and you declared that the data was false as a result, despite that it was from a different year.

Sentios wrote:Okay using your data healthcare, pensions, and welfare are only 59% in 2011 and 56% in 2012 so I think you should double check your math. Pensions/social security can't even be correctly treated as entitlements because that's money on loan from the working age citizens of the nation, payment comes due eventually. You may as well say our foreign debts are entitlements as well so you can preserve your world view.

So you're not objecting that it only takes 37% of the current budget to run the United States government, am I right? You're just objecting to calling Social Security an entitlement program?

That strawman at the end is kinda weak, dude. It's not even worth discussing.

Sentios wrote:

The point he's making is simply that we would have enough money to operate the government and provide for national defense (such as defending our borders from illegal immigration, etc.) and still have a lot left over without borrowing if we didn't have to pay out massive unsustainable entitlements that the UNITED STATES TREASURER doesn't have a plan for sustaining and who publicly admits that this is the case.

Except the moment you cut entitlements you lose at least 30-some% of your federal revenue because you have to cut related taxes and that's without knowing what the long term economic effects would be. Even if you can argue that to be a net positive you can't immediately cut 'entitlement' programs without large scale social upheaval.

This is another strawman, and you didn't address my main point.

Our programs are running unsustainable debt. If we don't cut some and change others, we won't be able to give people that money anyway.

Income taxes more than cover running the government, interest on current debt, and national defense. The taxes we collect for programs like Social Security would still exist if we changed the program. No one is asking to ABOLISH them. They are asking to FIX them.

The United States Treasurer does not have a plan to fix them, and doesn't seem to care to.

And you don't care about what your government officials are being paid to do? With your tax dollars?

Sentios wrote:

He's not saying they're a single program or entity, he's grouping them as a category. It's more along the lines of a description, like saying "arachnids" "fruits and vegetables" or "energy." There are sub-categories (Social Security or Medicare are two entitlement programs in this category). He's also not suggesting we entirely eliminate entitlements, but that they should be reduced or reformed to make sure that our country does not go bankrupt as a result of the collective programs' unsustainability.

Except no one is stupid enough to say 'fruits are poisonous'. The problems don't necessarily lie with the programs themselves thus they can't be fixed by butchering the programs. For example as I've said at least once before, medicare is expensive because our medical industry is absurdly expensive.

Then why don't you ask your state representatives to come up with a plan to fix the medical industry? Start some kind of petition and set up an appointment with your congressmen or senators or something, and tell them what you want. Until then government is only going to try and fix the government programs.

Sentios wrote:

Paul Ryan's plan is to leave it unchanged for people 55 or older and reform the system for those below 55 so that they can get a voucher for insurance, which would give insurance companies an incentive to compete for the vouchers. Funds for those vouchers will come from those same taxes. More than likely it won't be called Social Security anymore but the tax will still fund the program, and be a little more sustainable.

The essence of social security is that you pay into and get money back later, that the specific dollars came from someone 40 years younger than you is irrelevant so long as the cycle is unbroken (that is they can get money when they retire too).

You're picking and choosing my arguments. You completely ignored the fact that the program is unsustainable as is and you're picking at the part where I said "stealing from the young and giving the old," which I actually got from you. Are we going to talk about how the program is not sustainable and why the United States Treasurer has no plans to fix it?

Sentios wrote:As for your 'incentive to compete' malarkey we've heard it before and it doesn't happen in these particular industries.

So don't buy insurance if you hate the system so much. What do you want me to say here? "The industry is corrupt so we shouldn't fix Social Security?" Don't be absurd.

Also: malarkey. That's a nice old-fashioned term. Kudos.

Sentios wrote:

I'm not saying he's wrong. I'm saying he's right, but that he's going against his own stance on using "fear" as a tactic if he's saying that the economists are lying to us and the the economy is basically going to collapse. I was just pointing it out.

He didn't say it was going to collapse, he said it was going to boom and bust regardless of what economists do or say, which is historically true. It's no more terrifying than saying the sun will rise and set.

Jay wrote:Though, I shouldn't be too hard on them. I mean, economists are pretty important for public peace, since it lets us pretend the economy's under control at all and not just gonna fly off the handle in boom-bust cycles like it actually does.

This is Jay literally saying that the economists are lying to us and saying everything is fine when it's actually not. So either you're right and the economists just don't know what they're doing, or Jay is right and they know what they're doing, they're just lying to us. So which is it?

I wonder if I could get you to clarify this statement. Is it because I have an opinion that is fairly mainstream that I am brainwashed or because I have an opinion that is outside of what you call the norm?

RuffDraft wrote:So you're not objecting that it only takes 37% of the current budget to run the United States government, am I right? You're just objecting to calling Social Security an entitlement program?

That strawman at the end is kinda weak, dude. It's not even worth discussing.

100 - 56 =/= 37

Also social security does not fall under entitlement, as it's not a hand out. It's a loan that is due to many citizens of the nation, do you think savings bonds are entitlements as well? Insisting that you stop incorrectly classifying the spending in order to better support your argument isn't a strawman.

This is another strawman, and you didn't address my main point.

Our programs are running unsustainable debt. If we don't cut some and change others, we won't be able to give people that money anyway.

Income taxes more than cover running the government, interest on current debt, and national defense. The taxes we collect for programs like Social Security would still exist if we changed the program. No one is asking to ABOLISH them. They are asking to FIX them.

The United States Treasurer does not have a plan to fix them, and doesn't seem to care to.

And you don't care about what your government officials are being paid to do? With your tax dollars?

Uh yes I did, because the only way to 'fix' the programs is to cut the programs, massively lower the pay outs or massively increase the tax. In the second you have effectively driven the elderly onto the streets and you've already adamantly insisted that the third must not be allowed because of the recovery. Tell me how would you fix SS which doesn't fall under any of those three?

Then why don't you ask your state representatives to come up with a plan to fix the medical industry? Start some kind of petition and set up an appointment with your congressmen or senators or something, and tell them what you want. Until then government is only going to try and fix the government programs.

Simply because the illusion that representatives actually represent me has long ago worn off. You sound as though there aren't people doing exactly what you're telling me to do, while in reality there have been many people and they were ignored.

You're picking and choosing my arguments. You completely ignored the fact that the program is unsustainable as is and you're picking at the part where I said "stealing from the young and giving the old," which I actually got from you. Are we going to talk about how the program is not sustainable and why the United States Treasurer has no plans to fix it?

I picked at you misrepresenting what I said. As for the sustainability of the program, we've been over this. Revenue is simply either too low or the funds are being diverted else where, the program can't be cut in any timely or ethical fashion, and there's no way to reduce the cost of a money transfer. The only thing you can do is raise revenues through taxation, which you don't want to do.

So don't buy insurance if you hate the system so much. What do you want me to say here? "The industry is corrupt so we shouldn't fix Social Security?" Don't be absurd.

I'm telling you not to turn social security into another obamacare, there's nothing worse than putting the people at the mercy of a corrupt industry.

This is Jay literally saying that the economists are lying to us and saying everything is fine when it's actually not. So either you're right and the economists just don't know what they're doing, or Jay is right and they know what they're doing, they're just lying to us. So which is it?

Jay wrote:since it lets us pretend the economy's under control at all and not just gonna fly off the handle in boom-bust cycles like it actually does.

You've set up a nice false dichotomy since I'm agreeing with Jay. Economists make their money by occupying a paradox, the illusion that they're in control of something that they tell you straight out is impossible to control.

I wonder if I could get you to clarify this statement. Is it because I have an opinion that is fairly mainstream that I am brainwashed or because I have an opinion that is outside of what you call the norm?

He's calling you brainwashed because you're sticking with a somewhat ridiculous ideological belief with little regard to logos and evidence. I think.

I see that we differ on what constitutes "running the government." What are you not counting in this 56%?

Even if running the government was 44% of the budget, it would not be an "extra 20%" included in his pie chart (for which you said he was "show[ing] false data"), and it would still mean that we could have no entitlement programs and still have more than enough to run the government and pay off our debt.

Sentios wrote:Also social security does not fall under entitlement, as it's not a hand out. It's a loan that is due to many citizens of the nation, do you think savings bonds are entitlements as well?

Ahhhhhh...

There it is. We come across the fallacy of your way of thinking. You seem to believe that what you put into Social Security is what you get out of it in the end.

Well, this is fundamentally false by the way the program is designed. You actually get significantly more than what you put in---unless you die earlier than expected. This is exactly why the program is referred to as an entitlement. If it were a loan, as you say, you would get roughly what you put into it, and you could perhaps write off the scant extra that you get as interest paid. But right now, significantly more "interest" is paid than is received through investment (which, as it stands is considerably more than a few percentage points), and this is what's causing it to run a deficit.

Right now, Social Security is a huge scam... but it's fixable. Reforming the system so it doesn't run a huge deficit is what I'm suggesting we do. What are your problems with that?

Sentios wrote:Insisting that you stop incorrectly classifying the spending in order to better support your argument isn't a strawman.

I was talking about that thing about foreign interests at the end, but that was because I didn't realize that you thought Social Security wasn't an entitlement program.

Sentos wrote:

This is another strawman, and you didn't address my main point.

Our programs are running unsustainable debt. If we don't cut some and change others, we won't be able to give people that money anyway.

Income taxes more than cover running the government, interest on current debt, and national defense. The taxes we collect for programs like Social Security would still exist if we changed the program. No one is asking to ABOLISH them. They are asking to FIX them.

The United States Treasurer does not have a plan to fix them, and doesn't seem to care to.<My Main Point, btw

And you don't care about what your government officials are being paid to do? With your tax dollars?

Uh yes I did, because the only way to 'fix' the programs is to cut the programs, massively lower the pay outs or massively increase the tax. In the second you have effectively driven the elderly onto the streets

This is a strawman; Paul Ryan's plan doesn't affect people 55 or older. It seems he took that into account. Unless you'd like to debate the meaning of the word "elderly?"

Also, could you address my main point, please?

Sentios wrote:and you've already adamantly insisted that the third must not be allowed because of the recovery.

Which makes changing the way the program pays out in the long run the only option that works.

Sentios wrote: Tell me how would you fix SS which doesn't fall under any of those three?

Hm.

Well first, I would extend retirement age to 70 for those born after 1960; anyone born before that, the current number stays the same. Next, I would readjust the way that we determine benefit payouts to determine how much someone has put into the plan and that person can decide whether they want regular installments of their benefits, or half up front and the rest over a period of years; interest of about 5% would be included in all this. Also, I would give people the option of opting-out of social security; they would be able to opt-back in as long as they do so before their 50th birthday. Lastly, any unpaid sum would go to the immediate family of the deceased (or according to a Will); I would further prevent any amount paid out by Social Security from being subject to income taxes, estate taxes and so on.

Of course, I think Paul Ryan plan has some merit and he's the only one who's come up with a real, viable plan. The House (Republican-controlled) passed his plan but it was pushed back in the Senate (Democrat-controlled) by a relatively slim margin (57-40). However, they also unanimously rejected Pres. Obama's plan. That should tell you at the very least that the Paul Ryan plan is many times better than Pres. Obama's plan.

Sentios wrote:

Then why don't you ask your state representatives to come up with a plan to fix the medical industry? Start some kind of petition and set up an appointment with your congressmen or senators or something, and tell them what you want. Until then government is only going to try and fix the government programs.

Simply because the illusion that representatives actually represent me has long ago worn off. You sound as though there aren't people doing exactly what you're telling me to do, while in reality there have been many people and they were ignored.

Well, if everyone thought like you, SOPA and PIPA would have passed unobstructed. More than 500,000 people expressed opposition to SOPA and PIPA and both bills were shot down. Prior to gaining so much opposition, they were largely supported in the House and Senate. I personally voiced my concern and called my state representatives, who then came out against the bill. How's that for representation?

Sentios wrote:

You're picking and choosing my arguments. You completely ignored the fact that the program is unsustainable as is and you're picking at the part where I said "stealing from the young and giving the old," which I actually got from you. Are we going to talk about how the program is not sustainable and why the United States Treasurer has no plans to fix it?

I picked at you misrepresenting what I said. As for the sustainability of the program, we've been over this. Revenue is simply either too low or the funds are being diverted else where, the program can't be cut in any timely or ethical fashion, and there's no way to reduce the cost of a money transfer. The only thing you can do is raise revenues through taxation, which you don't want to do.

You seriously think this is a revenue problem? In the case of Social Security, the payouts are significantly larger than what each person invested. Let me explain this to you using actual numbers.

BankRate.com wrote:A male average earner who retired at age 65 in 2010 will have paid out approximately $345,000 in total Social Security and Medicare taxes, but will receive $417,000 in total lifetime benefits ($464,000 for a woman).

A much bigger disparity in taxes versus benefits occurs for couples. In the case of a household with only one wage earner, the taxes paid out were $345,000, but the benefits received by both parties will be $778,000. For two-earner couples where one earned the average wage and the other earned a low wage ($19,400), tax payout was $500,000, but benefits will be $800,000.

So don't buy insurance if you hate the system so much. What do you want me to say here? "The industry is corrupt so we shouldn't fix Social Security?" Don't be absurd.

I'm telling you not to turn social security into another obamacare, there's nothing worse than putting the people at the mercy of a corrupt industry.

Exactly how am I advocating turning Social Security into Obamacare? There is nothing in common with either of them.

Sentios wrote:

This is Jay literally saying that the economists are lying to us and saying everything is fine when it's actually not. So either you're right and the economists just don't know what they're doing, or Jay is right and they know what they're doing, they're just lying to us. So which is it?

Jay wrote:since it lets us pretend the economy's under control at all and not just gonna fly off the handle in boom-bust cycles like it actually does.

You've set up a nice false dichotomy since I'm agreeing with Jay.

Nothing I said has anything to do with you agreeing with Jay, and if you'll remember correctly, I was directing my original comment a Jay, and you decided to answer for him. It's interesting to know that you think he can't answer for himself.

I also didn't say I disagreed with him, I merely pointed out the obvious, which you are refuting.

Sentios wrote:Economists make their money by occupying a paradox, the illusion that they're in control of something that they tell you straight out is impossible to control.

How exactly is an economy impossible to control? Everything everyone does has a cause and effect. It's not hard to accurately predict the outcome given a set of circumstances. I put it to you that you have never studied economics, so you really have no clue how the economy works.

I see that we differ on what constitutes "running the government." What are you not counting in this 56%?

Everything that's not welfare, pensions or healthcare. And you're only guessing at whether or not simply cutting a few programs would actually restore the budget. In reality you' immediately lose a significant part of your revenue and are likely to lose even more down the road.

Ahhhhhh...

No that's exactly like savings bonds or a loans since your forgetting inflation, each dollar that was put into the program back then was worth significantly more than the ones put into today and so the pay outs seem much higher than they are. If there's a problem with the program it's that the loaned money was not invested well enough to give sufficient returns as you say, that doesn't mean you can fix the program at this stage. You owe how much you owe.

This is a strawman; Paul Ryan's plan doesn't affect people 55 or older. It seems he took that into account. Unless you'd like to debate the meaning of the word "elderly?"

Also, could you address my main point, please?

>implying I'm not talking about people under 55 but old enough to get screw by any major cuts in the program

As for your "main point", an incompetent politician is hardly surprising. If anything I'm glad that an incompetent politician is choosing to do nothing rather than doing the wrong thing and making the problem worse. As for your other main point about having enough money to run the government if not for entitlements. Sure you'll gain ~$1.6 billion and lose ~$.9 billion revenue for a net positive of ~$.8 billion according to the data sets you've provided. Congrats you win that point... ignoring the of course that you've opened a social unrest shit storm that will in all likelihood destroy the barely hanging on economy. That's not even a scare tactics that's just looking at the big picture instead of a spreadsheet.

Well first, I would extend retirement age to 70 for those born after 1960; anyone born before that, the current number stays the same. Next, I would readjust the way that we determine benefit payouts to determine how much someone has put into the plan and that person can decide whether they want regular installments of their benefits, or half up front and the rest over a period of years; interest of about 5% would be included in all this. Also, I would give people the option of opting-out of social security; they would be able to opt-back in as long as they do so before their 50th birthday. Lastly, any unpaid sum would go to the immediate family of the deceased (or according to a Will); I would further prevent any amount paid out by Social Security from being subject to income taxes, estate taxes and so on.

You realize that the retirement age is what it is because people eventually can't function in the work place right? I mean I've met some spry 70+ year olds but for a large number of the younger generations it's doubtful if they'll make it to 65 without being on disability there would be exponentially more with a retirement age of 70. Effectively all your solution does is move the burden from social security program to the disability program.

Well, if everyone thought like you, SOPA and PIPA would have passed unobstructed. More than 500,000 people expressed opposition to SOPA and PIPA and both bills were shot down. Prior to gaining so much opposition, they were largely supported in the House and Senate. I personally voiced my concern and called my state representatives, who then came out against the bill. How's that for representation?

So you think that it was the measly 500,000 people who swayed that and not large corporations like google and facebook and their public disapproval of the acts? Keep dreaming, as proof we'll see more of the same in the future that tries to slip by unnoticed.

You seriously think this is a revenue problem? In the case of Social Security, the payouts are significantly larger than what each person invested. Let me explain this to you using actual numbers.

BankRate.com wrote:A male average earner who retired at age 65 in 2010 will have paid out approximately $345,000 in total Social Security and Medicare taxes, but will receive $417,000 in total lifetime benefits ($464,000 for a woman).

A much bigger disparity in taxes versus benefits occurs for couples. In the case of a household with only one wage earner, the taxes paid out were $345,000, but the benefits received by both parties will be $778,000. For two-earner couples where one earned the average wage and the other earned a low wage ($19,400), tax payout was $500,000, but benefits will be $800,000.

I will just say that I don't know any person who collects that much SS per month despite it being the supposed average.

Exactly how am I advocating turning Social Security into Obamacare? There is nothing in common with either of them.

Getting private industry involved in a social safety net, without changing the private industry is the essence of obamacare. And the same would apply to whatever voucher program you were talking about.

Nothing I said has anything to do with you agreeing with Jay, and if you'll remember correctly, I was directing my original comment a Jay, and you decided to answer for him. It's interesting to know that you think he can't answer for himself.

I also didn't say I disagreed with him, I merely pointed out the obvious, which you are refuting.

Now you're just being sour. You said that he was relying on fear tactics when in reality he was just stating a historically proven truth, which I agree with, and I took the liberty of calling you on your bullshit.

How exactly is an economy impossible to control? Everything everyone does has a cause and effect. It's not hard to accurately predict the outcome given a set of circumstances. I put it to you that you have never studied economics, so you really have no clue how the economy works.

But at that point you're saying that planned economies are viable, which is contrary to what economists say. Hence the paradox.

So if someone makes more than $100k per year you'd be fine with the government confiscating it? Even if their income would be more than $1 million a year? $10 million a year? You'd be fine with the government taking all of it and leaving them only $100k?